Talk:Pat kohli

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discussion on page

  • Pat Kohli is a public relations professional working on behalf of the Haifan Baha'i organization
the article doesn't state that - nor does the reference link at the end of that par relate to that point
  • (in fact, it's Internet Committee whose task is precisely to libel and defame on public forums dissidents and detractors of said organization)
the article is about Kohli but there is no mention of any Internet committee on the page or connection between the two
  • and he also has professional ties to the arms contracting tech. aspect of the US military. Both of these were documented. Please explain to me in detail without platitudes how this is tangential to the core mission of SourceWatch? The inclusion of an article on Kohli is highly apropos on SW - spill-over or no spill-over. I, on the other hand, do not work for or am otherwise funded by any foundation, group, corporation, government, think-tank or otherwise.
yes the ref indicates that he has done IT work on various projects including military ones
  • key statements are unsourced (ie "is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup talk.religion.bahai")."

As a matter of fact, the second clause was in fact sourced. If you had searched through the versions of the article, another editor had put in links to Kohli's no vote on the creation of talk.religion.bahai and his subsequent activities on it. I took them out because the reference tags were interfering with the body of the article. Go take a look at the history.

the only reference in the deleted version was this - but there is no mention of talk.religion.bahai
  • better formatting, referencing and writing wouldn't overcome the fact that the profile is fundamentally off-topic"

Please explain to me with examples rather than vague impramaturs why you believe this to be? I have shown you above that it is in fact very on topic.

I am still struggling to see why Kholi deserves a SW page. Sure a programmer on military projects could be included in SW but is that all?
  • I can't see that the page is going to be of any interest to other existing editors."

This sounds like wikipedia editorial doublespeak here to me. But what you say above is categorically untrue, one other existing editor besides myself contributed in the discussion of the article, i.e. the same editor who put in the reference tags which I took down. Then you have Owen who commented, who BTW has admitted on talk.religion.bahai to being Pat Kohli himself -- i.e. the same person who nominated the article for deletion. This stinks, big time!

pages in SW either evolve because of the input of other editors or remain static. The page as it is doesn't meet our basic standards. Nor is it a priority for me to spend time researching, rewriting and referencing. My responsibility is to ensure that material added to SW is relevant and meets our standards - otherwise I end up having to handle the complaints.
What I'll do is to have one of the other sysops have a look and see what they think on whether the page should stay or go --Bob Burton 06:04, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Further discussion

Hi Bob, thanks for taking another look. I can put up additional references if need be? I will also add my prior comments below so that my reasons are clear for keeping and improving upon this page. Regarding your concern:

":I am still struggling to see why Kholi deserves a SW page. Sure a programmer on military projects could be included in SW but is that all?"

As I said, I think some further contextualisation within the other key elements of the Baha'i organization could assist with this concern, and I would appreciate the opportunity to do so.

(below are my previous comments addressing concerns over the article) Hi Bob,

Though I'm a new editor here, I would like to offer/seek some possible clarification on this article, and address some of the reasons for its deletion that you mentioned. If you'll permit me to address these point by point:

Hi Wahidazal66 -- re deletion of Page on Pat Kohli my reasons are:

  * on the same grounds that I deleted the page on Wahid Azal, which you supported. Both these pages are/were tangential to the core mission of SourceWatch.

Though there are many factors involved here, the Baha'i organization has shaped a substantial public image as a non-government religious organization that places enormous emphasis on non-violent dispute resolution, the forbidding of the carrying of weapons, and a general ideological stance towards a supposedly 'peaceful' attitude in the conduct of its affairs and philosophies. A couple of pages have been initiated on Sourcewatch by a reliable editor on certain Baha'i bodies, including the Baha’i Chair for World Peace, and other affiliated ‘think tanks’ and NGO’s centred around ‘peaceful conflict management’ and the provision of humanitarian services etc. Similarly, several other articles have been created on individuals affiliated with the Baha'i faith who have directly involved themselves with the manufacture of weapons technology for the US government. I believe the importance of this article is that one of the most prolific Baha’i affiliated internet activists in addressing external critics and internal dissenters within the Baha'i faith, is himself affiliated with an aspect of the US military industrial complex, a point that substantially assists in aspects of the debate over the profile and internal operations of this organization.

  * Both were the spillover of some edit war over at Wikipedia and that makes me very wary about providing another venue for the same edit warring to continue;

Wether this is true or not, as an individual article, it seems to me that (with a little clarification) this still appears to fulfill the criteria for inclusion on Sourcewatch, and in fact, if there was such group motivated edit warring occurring, that Sourcewatch acts as a repository of key verifiable information that may otherwise be removed by organized groups of editors on Wikipedia? I know Wikipedia is a pain, and you wish to maintain distance from it, but there are obviously complex factors involved here!

  * key statements are unsourced (ie "is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup talk.religion.bahai"). Other material which does have a reference link is simply cut and pasted. As it stands the material there is virtually unreadable to the uninitiated - and therefore I can't see that it is all that useful to any reader.

All of these could be verified with the correct editorial advice and consultation as to their appropriateness. I hope that if such references can be provided, with correct guidelines for usenet sources, this could be solved?

• better formatting, referencing and writing wouldn't overcome the fact that the profile is fundamentally off-topic.

As the information offered was largely from a technical brief regarding the role and activities of the individual in question, is this not appropriate for the initial establishment of an article? If not, perhaps there is somewhere I should look for guidelines regarding paraphrasing such information whilst maintaining factual accuracy? It seems that as there may have been an issue of neutrality spilling over from some ‘edit war’ that maintaining total factual representation may have initially been the best way to go?

Could you please offer some more information regarding why such an article on an individual who is instrumental in developing certain types of weapons technology (hence purely technical info provided with source), and who is also active within a highly connected NGO/religious organization, which operates under potentially conflicting public ideologies, is off topic? I think this is actually quite useful for those presently researching the activities and techniques employed by the Baha’is to create and maintain a certain public profile, and to undertake various NGO related tasks under the banner of a certain ideology/philosophy.

• I can't see that the page is going to be of any interest to other existing editors. And the fact that it wasn't of sufficient interest to the more general readership and editorship of Wikipedia tells me that a profile is not all that vital to the sum of human knowledge.

Would it be possible to reconsider this perspective, as I am currently interested in detailing the activities and connections of the Baha’i organisation, and would appreciate the opportunity to assist in creating a better and more meaningful profile to contextualise this article amongst other related material?

So I deleted it ... and I'll delete it again.--Bob Burton 01:04, 16 February 2009 (EST)

As I said, I would like the opportunity to clarify certain issues with reference to other articles and forthcoming information. There is a substantial amount of material to offer on this topic, and I hope to make a further contribution. Kind Regards. --Atomised 02:57, 16 February 2009 (EST)

--Atomised 17:17, 16 February 2009 (EST)


Hi Atomised

Thanks for your note and your offer to improve the article. What I'll do is leave the page on the site for the next week. In that time I would encourage you to rework and expand the material so that it meets our referencing standards and is easily understood by a general reader so that it is apparent why an article on Kohli is in SourceWatch. In particular see Help:References. If there is material about Baha'i and its general image then that really belongs on the page about the group not Kohli, unless of course it directly relates to him in someway promoting the image of the group. If the article hasn't substantially improved in a week from now then I'll delete it. In the meantime, I'll do a little basic formatting, correct the name and leave it to you.--Bob Burton 18:52, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks Bob. Much appreciated. I'll go through all the guidelines myself, but might drop you a line to check on correct usenet referencing. Essentially, according to my research, Pat Kohli has been heavily involved in addressing many (if not most) major issues of online critique of the Baha'i organisation, as well as conducting his approach to internal and external critics in a manner that has been detailed and recorded by several notable sources (which I will obviously detail in the correct place) as comprising an identifiable and orchestrated "Baha'i technique" for dealing with such criticism. I imagine this, amongst other things, will assist in detailing why the material specifically relates to him, and I will seek to fill in the necessary aspects of any related articles as well. Cheers. --Atomised 19:16, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Hi Bob,

Would you be able to advise me whether the current version of the page in question ( is sufficiently well referenced, or whether I should expand upon what is written? The specific context to which this article relates is raised here:

Professor Juan Cole ( is quoted within the sources above, and has also detailed other aspects pertinent to this issue at:

The Baha'i organisation also claims to maintain a clear stance on disarmament, which should be factored into the discussion, and added to the relevant page (which I hope to do in expanding their article):

"In this spirit, the Bahá'í International Community offers the following observations on the connection between disarmament and development:

  1. Disarmament and development are interrelated. Funds used to make weapons are a drain on the national and world economies. Such funds could be better used to raise the living conditions of the world's peoples.
  2. The economic connection between disarmament and development represents only one side of the issue. A spiritual connection also exists. Resources spent for weapons drain not only national treasuries; they also drain the reservoirs of human hope and trust.
  3. The two issues must be approached in an integrated manner. Not only can disarmament further the cause of development; development can further the cause of disarmament. Indeed, the key to advancing the cause of both disarmament and development lies in fostering a sense of global unity. Unless unity is attained, true peace and security will remain out of reach."

Obviously, these are elements of a much broader discussion to which I would like to contribute, but hope for the time being they will sufficiently contextualise the page on Pat Kohli. Kind regards.

--Atomised 06:46, 20 February 2009 (EST)